Peer Review Report For: Psychosocial factors explaining academic dropout among scholarship students at a public university in Peru [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Résumé fourni par la source

Introduction Student dropout in higher education is one of the most concerning issues on the agendas of countries, and it remains a challenge for the higher education system. This is reflected in cases where, despite the benefits and support provided by the state, students decide to give up their scholarships for various reasons. These reasons include economic, social, psychological, organizational, and interaction-related factors, as well as internal and external factors, all of which highlight the inefficiency of the higher education system. Objective Determining the psychosocial factors that explain academic dropout in scholarship students at a public university in 2024. Methods The methodology involves a quantitative approach, with a descriptive-explanatory level and a non-experimental design, as it is framed within the social sciences. Results The results of the structural equations rely on the confirmatory factor analysis, whose indices yield the following outcomes: χ 2 = CMIN/df = 1.64, GFI = 0.923, AGFI = 0.855, NFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.896, and RMSEA = 0.081. These values demonstrate adequate indices for the constructs in the estimated model, which is explained by the six factors identified as contributors to academic dropout. Conclusions The social factors that students consider relevant to academic dropout relate to issues such as difficulties in making friends, the institution failing to provide conditions for healthy social interaction, and family environment. Meanwhile, the motivational factors that students consider relevant to academic dropout pertain to issues related to emotional aspects that influence decision-making, the normative aspect in terms of understanding how higher education functions, and psychological health.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.